'Legitimate Rape'

Sonics2k

blacklilly wrote: »

I think both genders have equal say on this matter, we live in a democracy.
Yes the woman carries the baby, gives birth but that shouldn't mean that men are no. Entitled to a vote on the matter.
And before someone retorts with " so you're saying a man can force a woman to abort or force a woman to keep the baby" I'm not saying that, voting or having an opinion does not equate to forcing something on someone.

Well, I mean I can only say this as my own opinion, and as a father myself.

Obviously the father should have a say in the matter, but it really should be the mothers final call and decision. She's the one who's pregnant and goes through it all.

Colmustard

B0jangles wrote: »

No they don't.

A friend of mine was a bit too tipsy one night, so we called her a cab. A mutual friend spontaneously offered to see her safe to her door.

Next time I saw her she tearfully told me that she woke up the following morning naked in his bed, with clear signs that she had had sex and no memeory of having done so. She had already gotten the morning-after pill and was looking into what STI tests she should get.

She did not go to the police because she didn't think she'd be believed.

He was not drunk.

He offered to see her safe to her own house.

He took the opportunity of her state to take her to his own home and rape her.

I'm sure his friends (if they hear anything at all) heard about how he finally got into the pants of that hot girl he knew.

If she had gone to the police and you were his friend. don't you think that he'd tell you that it was totally consensual and she just regretted it the morning after, and crazy bitches just make this **** up all the time?

She could have got a test to see what drugs were in her system and your man would have rightly being in a world of pain.

My sister in law was drugged but luckilly a good Samaritan taxi-man prevented the worse,

batistuta9

B0jangles wrote: »

No they don't, not to any stastistically relevant extent anyway.

A friend of mine was a bit too tipsy one night, so we called her a cab. A mutual friend spontaneously offered to see her safe to her door.

Next time I saw her she tearfully told me that she woke up the following morning naked in his bed, with clear signs that she had had sex and no memeory of having done so. She had already gotten the morning-after pill and was looking into what STI tests she should get.

She did not go to the police because she didn't think she'd be believed.

He was not drunk.

He offered to see her safe to her own house.

He took the opportunity of her state to take her to his own home and rape her.

I'm sure his friends (if they hear anything at all) heard about how he finally got into the pants of that hot girl he knew.

If she had gone to the police and you were his friend. don't you think that he'd tell you that it was totally consensual and she just regretted it the morning after, and crazy bitches just make this **** up all the time?

look it's terrible what happened to your friend, as the guy would seem to know what he was doing even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

blatantrereg

Really my main reaction to this is interest in how the female body might block pregnancy from rape. Any info going on that?

Colmustard

batistuta9 wrote: »

look it's terrible what happened to your friend, as the guy would seem to know what he was doing even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

I don't believe that happens that often, it never happened to me or anyone in my large circle. It really is simple, no means no.

namloc1980

blatantrereg wrote: »

Really my main reaction to this is interest in how the female body might block pregnancy from rape. Any info going on that?

It came from the mouth of a Southern Republican politician......'nuff said really!

blatantrereg

later12 wrote: »

Actually, I think it's even worse than that. Gottschall & Gottschall (2003) found that " per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. "

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/

You're actually more likely to get pregnant arising from being raped than you are from consensual sex.

Apparently men shoot more junk in a one-off encounter (in order to maximise the possibility of impregnation, from a biological standpoint).
Men shoot less with a regular partner (again to maximise the possibility for impregnation - conservative spending of love juice means more shots of it).

It wasn't me!

batistuta9 wrote: »

even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

If she's in that state, she's not capable of informed consent. Now, while I'd have all the sympathy in the world if the guy were pissed too, had no idea what he was doing or what state she was in and got labelled a sex pest for what he thought was a great night for all concerned, but when the sober person in question has volunteered to help someone get home because they're trashed and need a bit of help and then rides them, that's an abuse of trust and a disadvantaged position and it's rape, because they know the person is in a state of non-competence and can't possibly consent.

Colmustard

blatantrereg wrote: »

Really my main reaction to this is interest in how the female body might block pregnancy from rape. Any info going on that?

Its not so much that they block the pregnancy, the egg has to be in place, the conditions have to be right for the sperm to travel to the egg. But it does happen and the senator is a loon.

Couples wanting to have a child it usually takes a while, I know one couple it took a year for their first, they now have 4 kids proving there was nothing wrong with either's baby making departments.

dr.bollocko

newmug wrote: »

Would the two of you calm down?

Now. Yiz both took me up wrong. As did a mod. I dont agree with what this looper of a politican is saying, I am merely pointing out that maybe he was taken out of context. Maybe he used the word "legitimate" to differentiate between non-consensual violent rape, and the consensual-but-changed-your-mind-afterwards type. It happens more often than you think!

As for statistics about getting pregnant, (which I dont really see the relevance for, rape is rape), Bojangles nailed it well:

Mod: Newmug.
You've missed the point of your first warning. Don't post in this thread again.

blatantrereg

Colmustard wrote: »

Its not so much that they block the pregnancy, the egg has to be in place, the conditions have to be right for the sperm to travel to the egg. But it does happen and the senator is a loon.

Couples wanting to have a child it usually takes a while, I know one couple it took a year for their first, they now have 4 kids proving there was nothing wrong with either's baby making departments.

I'm even more interested in hearing the details of batsh!t crazy pseudo science beliefs than I am in hearing actual science tbh

dr.bollocko

batistuta9 wrote: »

look it's terrible what happened to your friend, as the guy would seem to know what he was doing even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

batistuta9 wrote: »

yeah he means when they were actually raped by legitimate

and the other type is just people getting out of having a baby by making up they were raped

another molehill turned into a mountain on boards.ie



everyone knows that happens

mod:

Same deal. Please quit with this nonsense. Don't post in this thread again.

B0jangles

batistuta9 wrote: »

look it's terrible what happened to your friend, as the guy would seem to know what he was doing even if she did consent to it in her drunken state, he took advantage

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

She wanted to go home. She woke up in his bed. She consented to nothing.

Do you have any clue whatsoever about what is involved in bringing a rape change against someone? It's not a quick phonecall and the poor guy is locked up forever. Intimate physical exams happen, the victim's statement is taken, and she is questioned extensively. if it proceeds to court, the prosecution is allowed to bring up her past sexual history, personal habits and morality to undermine her credibility.

Also no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy if she does not want to. The very idea that someone would be forced to lie about being suicidal, or having been assaulted to get one is totally abhorrent.

Edit: sorry, did not mean to continue derail

Wibbs

blatantrereg wrote: »

Really my main reaction to this is interest in how the female body might block pregnancy from rape. Any info going on that?

If such a mechanism existed I would imagine it would be down to lack of vaginal secretions whch would otherwise help the sperm travel. Then again, without such secretions more internal damage would occur due to lack of lubrication. Quite a few women report localised arousal when they were being raped, even though they were in a state of abject fcuking terror. Afterwards they can feel incredibly confused, guilty and traumatised by that. Understandable on the face of it, but they really really bloody well shouldn't. It was her own body protecting herself from even further physical damage.







PS any knuckle dragging mouthbreather that has any confusion over some women's "rape fantasies" and the reality of rape needs a fcuking reality check, an education, or a kick up the fundament, whichever works.

Colmustard

B0jangles wrote: »

She wanted to go home. She woke up in his bed. She consented to nothing.

Do you have any clue whatsoever about what is involved in bringing a rape change against someone? It's not a quick phonecall and the poor guy is locked up forever. Intimate physical exams happen, the victim's statement is taken, and she is questioned extensively. if it proceeds to court, the prosecution is allowed to bring up her past sexual history, personal habits and morality to undermine her credibility.

Also no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy if she does not want to. The very idea that someone would be forced to lie about being suicidal, or having been assaulted to get one is totally abhorrent.

Edit: sorry, did not mean to continue derail

Its dreadful, but she should have reported it, they are better with dealing with this now. This maybe a terrible thing to say, but in effect she left a unreported rapist out there.

If she had rohypnol in her system there is at least a case for your man to answer, even if it does not go to court people at least find out what that cnut is.

I know its not that simple.

B0jangles

Colmustard wrote: »

Its dreadful, but she should have reported it, they are better with dealing with this now. This maybe a terrible thing to say, but in effect she left a unreported rapist out there.

If she had rohypnol in her system there is at least a case for your man to answer, even if it does not go to court people at least find out what that cnut is.

I know its not that simple.

God, I know it now, but it was about 10 years ago and we were a lot younger and more timid than we'd be these days

PrincessLola

The only good I can see coming out of that statement is that attention is now being drawn to the ignorent and messed up attitudes people have towards rape.
This man is a repulsive human being and I am filled with hope that people are outraged by his statement.

Biggins

PrincessLola wrote: »

The only good I can see coming out of that statement is that attention is now being drawn to the ignorent and messed up attitudes people have towards rape.
This man is a repulsive human being and I am filled with hope that people are outraged by his statement.

Amen.

B0jangles

PrincessLola wrote: »

The only good I can see coming out of that statement is that attention is now being drawn to the ignorent and messed up attitudes people have towards rape.
This man is a repulsive human being and I am filled with hope that people are outraged by his statement.

His own party are treating him like a fart in a crowded elevator and the National GOP has pulled all funding from his campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

PrincessLola

B0jangles wrote: »

His own party are treating him like a fart in a crowded elevator and the National GOP has pulled all funding from his campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

The best twitter response I saw was "The female body also has ways of shutting down your campaign".
:cool:

later12

Wibbs wrote: »

That's interesting. You would think evolution would have adapted the other way? If it didn't the either rape wasn't enough of a selection pressure in the first place or it was and it was an advantageous one at some time in the past. Fcuk knows why though? Possibly one reason why rapes go up massively in conflicts? The genetic replacement factor? Though again hat would have selected for women not to get pregnant. Very odd.

Actually I don't know an awful lot about this, never having thought to research it before, but there is quite a voluminous body of research & opinion on the internet about this. This article was particularly interesting.

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/McKibbin-et-al-RGP-2008.pdf

It reviews various research publications on the evolutionary background to rape, and notes that rape occurs in many different species (as owners of hens & pheasants will attest), but I thought their reference to primates who rape, in this case orang utans, was especially interesting.

Anyway, in terms of the higher pregnancy rate amongst rape victims relative to consensural partners, this aspect of the paper might help to explain that in some way.

Specifically, a rapist might be more successful reproductively by maximizing the chance that a one-time forced copulation will result in preg- nancy. According to this hypothesis, a would-be rapist may be more likely to target a highly fertile woman than a woman who is less fertile (Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). Human female fertility (current likelihood of conception per cop- ulation) peaks in the early to mid-20s. Therefore, if women in this age range are overrepresented in reports of rape, it is possible that this reflects a male adaptation that leads to raping fertile women more often than nonfertile women. Numerous studies have documented that young women are most often targeted by rapists, and that women of peak fertility are overrepresented in reported and unreported rapes (Ghiglieri, 2000; Greenfield, 1997; Kil- patrick et al., 1992; Shields & Shields, 1983, Thornhill & Palmer, 2000; Thornhill & Thorn- hill, 1983).

Just to go back to one point, in relation to the risk of pregnancy following on from rape. I was initially skeptical that the politician in question was being 'absurd', as some people seemed to claim. I thought it made evolutionary sense that a female's body might have been an inhospitable environment to fertilisation during a period of aggressive, co-ercive sex. We shouldn't dismiss these possibilities out of hand

But the really shocking thing is that it is incredibly easy to find the information on google scholar.

A very immature teenager could do this. Why on Earth is a lawmaker, a man with influence in shaping the legislation that affects an entire nation of women, not taking 5 minutes out of his day, to inform himself of the facts surrounding rape and pregnancy.

I find that genuinely staggering, pretty much to the point where he is neglecting the responsibility with which he has been honoured with by his peers.

That sort of disdain for decision making based on factual evidence is unjustifiable in a public representative.

Biggins

later12 wrote: »

...Why on Earth is a lawmaker, a man with influence in shaping the legislation that affects an entire nation of women, not taking 5 minutes out of his day, to inform himself of the facts surrounding rape and pregnancy.

I suspect he's very aware of a lot of facts - however he might be willing to ignore some facts - well those that don't suit his point of view.

He wouldn't be the first religious person to do this.

southsiderosie

B0jangles wrote: »

His own party are treating him like a fart in a crowded elevator and the National GOP has pulled all funding from his campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

I'm clearly not a fan, but I hope he stays in the race as he will be easier to beat than some of the other candidates. :pac: But he will probably bow out soon. :mad:

pennypocket

batistuta9 wrote: »

but there's women who claim they've been sexually assault when in fact they haven't & they'll be women looking to have abortions too when they don't want the child

If a woman wants an abortion, she should be allowed the bodily autonomy to make that decision for herself, regardless of the context of conception.
As for the false rape accusations, they are a tiny tiny percentage of the overall statistics on rape, of which we only know about because they were brought to the attention of the authorities in the first place. The statistics on sexual assault in Ireland are particularly shocking: 42% of women and 28% of men experience sexual abuse or assault in their lifetime; 10% of women and 3% of men penetrative assault. Only 1% of men and 7.8% of women report these assaults to the Gardai, and only 1% of these reported incidents will end in conviction with over 95% of these cases falling out of the system before prosecution. [Rape Statistics Ireland http://www.rcni.ie/national-statistics.aspx]

Anyway, it is not surprising that so many cases fail in court, the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system makes it particularly onerous on the victim in these types of prosecutions, and indeed, many report the process as being almost as equally traumatising as the event itself. So even to report an incident of assault requires a great deal of courage to begin with.

As for Todd 'legitimate rape' Akin, he claims that he 'misspoke' and was 'off-the-cuff' in the interview. Too late to backpeddle now Todd, even the GOP don't want you.

later12

Biggins wrote: »

I suspect he's very aware of a lot of facts - however he might be willing to ignore some facts - well those that don't suit his point of view.

I don't know Biggins. My guess would be that he genuinely didn't bother to do a quick search, or ask the people whom he knew could give him reliable answers based on cold hard facts.

People often mock 'civil war politics in Ireland. And whilst our politicians are not always the most informed policymakers we might wish for, instances like this actually make me quite thankful that we do not have the same deeply ideological political divide in Irish politics.

If a fact is wrong,a poltician will be pulled up on it quite rapidly. He will more than likely be forced to stop repeating that untruth.

Not so in the US, where 'facts' seem to carry a far deeper ideological significance, regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect.

Morag

Wibbs wrote: »

That's interesting. You would think evolution would have adapted the other way? If it didn't the either rape wasn't enough of a selection pressure in the first place or it was and it was an advantageous one at some time in the past. Fcuk knows why though? Possibly one reason why rapes go up massively in conflicts? The genetic replacement factor? Though again hat would have selected for women not to get pregnant. Very odd.

It's not odd, it's a survival instinct. The aggressive male may become less aggressive once the pheromones start letting him know she is pregnant.

up for anything

blatantrereg wrote: »

Apparently men shoot more junk in a one-off encounter (in order to maximise the possibility of impregnation, from a biological standpoint).
Men shoot less with a regular partner (again to maximise the possibility for impregnation - conservative spending of love juice means more shots of it).

For an articulate poster who uses a phrase like 'maximise the possibility of impregnation' why on earth do you use words like junk, shoot and the most cringe-makingly awful - love juice?

Ejaculate
Sperm
More sperm

pennypocket

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm clearly not a fan, but I hope he stays in the race as he will be easier to beat than some of the other candidates. :pac: But he will probably bow out soon. :mad:

The damage is done now, it seems a good bet for Democrat Claire McCaskill in Missouri, no other GOP candidate can override the PR catastrophe Todd Akin has unleashed in this state. Really fed into the Democrat's hands here, all they have to is sit back and bask in the stupidity.

Dangerous Man

Colmustard wrote: »

Pro/life is moronic, what the hell does it mean, the 2 positions are either pro abortion or anti abortion. And what part of my post was sexist.

PS I am a man.

Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

pennypocket

later12 wrote: »

I don't know Biggins. My guess would be that he genuinely didn't bother to do a quick search, or ask the people whom he knew could give him reliable answers based on cold hard facts.

People often mock 'civil war politics in Ireland. And whilst our politicians are not always the most informed policymakers we might wish for, instances like this actually make me quite thankful that we do not have the same deeply ideological political divide in Irish politics.

If a fact is wrong,a poltician will be pulled up on it quite rapidly. He will more than likely be forced to stop repeating that untruth.

Not so in the US, where 'facts' seem to carry a far deeper ideological significance, regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect.

The problem with US politics is exactly that divide, and the fact that Republicans have courted the religious vote from the late 1960s onwards; siding with organisations such as the Christian Voice, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Focus on the Family for easy votes in the increasingly conservative counter-cultural christian south, and now they don't know how to wean themselves off that particular tit. Shoulda stuck to the fiscal conservatism. The ridiculous thing is is that it makes of every polarising ideological issue a party political one, and of course, two uncompromising extremes don't make a right.